The Obama administration on Friday proposed two new executive actions to make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national background check system, wading back into the gun control debate after a months-long hiatus.

Vice President Biden's office announced the proposals Friday afternoon. Both pertain to the ability of states to provide information about the mentally ill and those seeking mental health treatment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit "the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands," without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA.

"The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm," the statement said. "Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules."

The other proposal would clarify that those who are involuntarily committed to a mental institution -- both inpatient and outpatient -- count under the law as "committed to a mental institution." According to the administration, this change will help clarify for states what information to provide to the background check system, as well as who is barred from having guns.

It sounds innocent on the surface, but that group, and their allies have shown a propensity to lie and change or add new items into bills at a later date. I don't believe a thing spoken by the President or any members in Gov't. Particularly those with a Capital 'D' before or after their name.

I am all for keeping firearms away from dangerous people. That said, little caveats to our freedoms such as this give too much power to bureaucrats at the state and federal levels.

Does alcoholism make you mentally ill? What if you were severely depressed at one point, but things turned around for you? Or, what about someone who has dealt with anger management issues? Just curious if folks like this get treated the same as the guy that says he constantly fantasizes about shooting everyone in Congress, if he could only find a way to do it.......

The states are not reporting adjudicated mental cases that are a threat to themselves and/or others to NICS.

Underline=mine.

Quote:

Some states have reported that certain barriers under current law make it difficult for them to identify and submit appropriate information to the federal background check system regarding individuals prohibited under federal law from having a gun for mental health reasons. Today, DOJ and HHS are taking steps that will help address these barriers.

Some states have noted that the terminology used by federal law to prohibit people from purchasing a firearm for certain mental health reasons is ambiguous. Today, DOJ is issuing a proposed rule to make several clarifications. For example, DOJ is proposing to clarify that the statutory term committed to a mental institution includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments. In addition to providing general guidance on federal law, these clarifications will help states determine what information should be made accessible to the federal background check system, which will, in turn, strengthen the systems reliability and effectiveness.

Some states have also said that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Acts (HIPAA) privacy provisions may be preventing them from making relevant information available to the background check system regarding individuals prohibited from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons. In April 2013, HHS began to identify the scope and extent of the problem, and based on public comments is now issuing a proposed rule to eliminate this barrier by giving certain HIPAA covered entities an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands. The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm. Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules.

I am all for keeping firearms away from dangerous people. That said, little caveats to our freedoms such as this give too much power to bureaucrats at the state and federal levels.

Does alcoholism make you mentally ill? What if you were severely depressed at one point, but things turned around for you? Or, what about someone who has dealt with anger management issues? Just curious if folks like this get treated the same as the guy that says he constantly fantasizes about shooting everyone in Congress, if he could only find a way to do it.......

We know how this administration plays Chicago style political tactics. The main agenda is government does not want the civilian masses to be armed. A disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

This is pushing the threshold! If you have a so-called qualified mental health providers (Psychiatrists to school counselors) that are anti-gun, period. They will call the police because of their anti-gun views and this will spiral out of control.

It is actually against some states laws to report to nics. I know Rhode Island is one of them. It is in their state constitution not to report to the Feds certain things, and mental health falls into that

That's what drives me nuts about the background check, and the Feds wanting to "expand" it. What good is it if 13 states don't report to it?

i am very leary of anything the government wants reported to keep guns out of the citizens hands.

and just what information is going to be used?
who is going to provide it?

will it be a release of private information between a paitent and their doctor that is reported?

i have personally seen my family doctor in the past for depression. i wasn't thinking about suicide or going on any killing spree, but i just felt like something was missing and was not content, when i should have been. i had a chemical imbalance that needed to be adjusted. and given how the gun grabbers and liber gun haters want to try and use all they can to deny a citizen his right to own a gun, i fear such things as even my case could be used to deny myself and others like myself.

if someone is truly bat$hit crazy and mentally unstable and is judged by several doctors and a judge, and committed for treatment or for their safety as well as the public, then that is one thing. but family doctors and paitent records need to be kept private and out of the hands of the government.

i am very leary of anything the government wants reported to keep guns out of the citizens hands.

and just what information is going to be used?
who is going to provide it?

will it be a release of private information between a paitent and their doctor that is reported?

i have personally seen my family doctor in the past for depression. i wasn't thinking about suicide or going on any killing spree, but i just felt like something was missing and was not content, when i should have been. i had a chemical imbalance that needed to be adjusted. and given how the gun grabbers and liber gun haters want to try and use all they can to deny a citizen his right to own a gun, i fear such things as even my case could be used to deny myself and others like myself.

if someone is truly bat$hit crazy and mentally unstable and is judged by several doctors and a judge, and committed for treatment or for their safety as well as the public, then that is one thing. but family doctors and paitent records need to be kept private and out of the hands of the government.

Once privacy laws are pushed aside for gun control who is to stop people from using your medical history to deny employment? Once information is loose in the system people will find a way to get it for the wrong reasons. That is why HIPPA laws are so strict right now.

Right now you have to be involuntarily committed to lose your RKBA. If you walk into a mental hospital of your own free will you do not lose your RKBA. If you walk in on your own you recognized that something wasn't right and got help, there is no reason to strip you of your RKBA.

Once privacy laws are pushed aside for gun control who is to stop people from using your medical history to deny employment? Once information is loose in the system people will find a way to get it for the wrong reasons. That is why HIPPA laws are so strict right now.

Right now you have to be involuntarily committed to lose your RKBA. If you walk into a mental hospital of your own free will you do not lose your RKBA. If you walk in on your own you recognized that something wasn't right and got help, there is no reason to strip you of your RKBA.

i totally understand and know that. there is a huge difference in voluntary admittance to a hospital for a problem and being committed by a judge and a doctor because that person is deemed a danger either to themself or others.

voluntary admittance for a mental or emotional issue is no different than admitting yourself to the hospital for gall bladder surgery. it is not reported and it shouldn't be. people who seek help because they have a problem are looking to correct their problems and lead productive lives. it should be kept private.

no different than having your private doctors records made available for scrutiny for basing a decision on who can or can't buy a gun.